Bozick v. Conagra Foods, Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:19-cv-04045
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Bozick v. Conagra, Judge Woods approved the parties’ stipulated protective order governing confidential discovery materials.
The parties, their officers, agents, employees, attorneys, certain people acting with them, and anyone else with actual notice of the order who receives or accesses discovery material designated as confidential.
What happened
Bozick v. Conagra Foods, Inc. involved the parties’ request for a protective order covering nonpublic and competitively sensitive information disclosed during discovery.
The order limits disclosure of material marked confidential, permits sharing with specified people such as counsel, witnesses, experts, and the court, and requires safeguards including nondisclosure agreements in some circumstances. Confidential material may be used only for this case and related appeals, and generally must be returned or destroyed after the case ends.
Judge Woods found good cause and ordered the parties and other covered people to follow the stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order. The order does not decide whether any material is actually confidential, admissible, or entitled to remain sealed.
The detailed version
- Bozick v. Conagra Foods, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-04045
- Lewis Liman
- Feb. 3, 2020
Background
The parties jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They sought protections for nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that might be disclosed during discovery. The court found good cause for an appropriately tailored order governing the pretrial phase of the case.
Order’s requirements
The order defines “Discovery Material” as information produced or disclosed during discovery. A producing party may designate material as “Confidential” only when it reasonably and in good faith believes the material falls within specified categories, including previously undisclosed financial information, information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company, business or marketing plans, personal or intimate information, or another category later given confidential status by the court.
People covered by the order generally may disclose confidential discovery material only to listed recipients, including the parties, insurers and their counsel, counsel and support staff working on the case, outside vendors, mediators or arbitrators, certain people identified in a document, potential witnesses, experts, deposition stenographers, and the court. Mediators, witnesses, and experts must first receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement. The material may be used only to prosecute or defend this case and related appeals.
The order also establishes procedures for designating deposition testimony, correcting an earlier failure to designate material, objecting to a confidentiality designation, seeking additional limits such as attorneys’-eyes-only treatment, and filing confidential material with the court. A party filing such material must publicly file a redacted version and separately seek permission to file an unredacted version under seal. The court warned that it may not seal material introduced at trial and retained discretion over whether to give confidential treatment to designated material.
Within 60 days after final disposition of the case, including appeals, recipients generally must return or destroy confidential material and certify that they have not retained copies or other reproductions. Attorneys specifically retained for the case may keep archival copies of specified litigation materials, which remain subject to the order. The order survives termination of the litigation, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it and impose sanctions for contempt.
Disposition
The court issued the stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order. It did not rule on the merits of the underlying dispute, the admissibility of evidence, or whether particular materials ultimately deserved confidential or sealed treatment. Judge Gregory H. Woods signed the order on February 3, 2020.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.